alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0668.html[7/21/2015 8:20:40 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-c5e6

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0668

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: LB Anonymous

General Comment

I can plan for my own retirement. Please do not get government involved.
Editorial Note on Part 391
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 391 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 391.25 Annual inquiry and review of driving record. ( a ) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, each motor carrier shall, at least once every 12 months, make an inquiry to obtain the motor vehicle record of each driver it employs, covering at least the preceding 12 months, to each driver's licensing authority where the driver held a commercial motor vehicle operator's license or permit during the time period.
( b ) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, each motor carrier shall, at least once every 12 months, review the motor vehicle record of each driver it employs to determine whether that driver meets minimum requirements for safe driving or is disqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to § 391.15. ( 1 ) The motor carrier must consider any evidence that the driver has violated any applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in this subchapter or Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR chapter I, subchapter C).
( 2 ) The motor carrier must consider the driver's accident record and any evidence that the driver has violated laws governing the operation of motor vehicles, and must give great weight to violations, such as speeding, reckless driving, and operating while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, that indicate that the driver has exhibited a disregard for the safety of the public.
( c ) ( 1 ) A copy of the motor vehicle record required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained in the driver's qualification file.
( 2 ) A note, including the name of the person who performed the review of the driving record required by paragraph (b) of this section and the date of such review, shall be maintained in the driver's qualification file.
[63 FR 33277, June 18, 1998, as amended at 73 FR 73127, Dec. 1, 2008; 87 FR 13209, Mar. 9, 2022; 87 FR 59036, Sept. 29, 2022]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40193

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FIDENCIO LOPEZ-SALAZAR 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-1418-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Fidencio Lopez-Salazar

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision

and not a separate criminal offense. The appellant's motion for summary

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 569.7 Requirements. ( a ) *Regrooved tires.* ( 1 ) Except as permitted by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, no person shall sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce regrooved tires produced by removing rubber from the surface of a worn tire tread to generate a new tread pattern. Any person who regrooves tires and leases them to owners or operators of motor vehicles and any person who regrooves his own tires for use on motor vehicles is considered to be a person delivering for introduction into interstate commerce within the meaning of this part.
( 2 ) A regrooved tire may be sold, offered for sale, or introduced for sale or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce only if it conforms to each of the following requirements: ( i ) The tire being regrooved shall be a regroovable tire;
( ii ) After regrooving, cord material below the grooves shall have a protective covering of tread material at least 3 ⁄ 32-inch thick;
( iii ) After regrooving, the new grooves generated into the tread material and any residual original molded tread groove which is at or below the new regrooved depth shall have a minimum of 90 linear inches of tread edges per linear foot of the circumference;
( iv ) After regrooving, the new groove width generated into the tread material shall be a minimum of 3 ⁄ 16-inch and a maximum of 5 ⁄ 16-inch;
( v ) After regrooving, all new grooves cut into the tread shall provide unobstructed fluid escape passages; and
( vi ) After regrooving, the tire shall not contain any of the following defects, as determined by a visual examination of the tire either mounted on the rim, or dismounted, whichever is applicable: ( A ) Cracking which extends to the fabric,
( B ) Groove cracks or wear extending to the fabric, or
( C ) Evidence of ply, tread, or sidewall separation;
( vii ) If the tire is siped by cutting the tread surface without removing rubber, the tire cord material shall not be damaged as a result of the siping process, and no sipe shall be deeper than the original or retread groove depth.
( b ) *Siped regroovable tires.* No person shall sell, offer for sale, or introduce for sale or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce a regroovable tire that has been siped by cutting the tread surface without removing rubber if the tire cord material is damaged as a result of the siping process, or if the tire is siped deeper than the original or retread groove depth.
[39 FR 15039, Apr. 30, 1974, as amended at 42 FR 21613, Apr. 28, 1977]
1210-AB32-2-1420.html[7/26/2015 4:47:50 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwa-je3g

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1916

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jann Walter

General Comment

No more regulation of monies! This is taking away the choices of the people. Stop this regulation from becoming

 law!
From: "Hunt, Tim" <Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org> To: Jim Berlow/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Noe, Paul" <Paul_Noe@afandpa.org>, "Scha ffer, Amy" <Amy_Schaffer@afandpa.org> Date: 10/14/2011 12:34 PM Subject: Wastewater Treatment Residuals

Jim,

Based on our discussion on non-waste fuels, I am providing additional information on Wastewater Treatment Residuals (WWTR) which shows they are managed and used as fuels when burned in boilers (including some sludge only boilers) and thus are not solid wastes. They are commonly processed to re move water but there is not a specific moisture fuel spec because other biomass re siduals that are burned also have higher moisture contents. Over half of WWTR is benef icially used with half of that being used as a fuel in boilers almost entirely onsite as far as we can determine.

Hopefully this paper provides additional informati on that is helpful to your examination of WWTR.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Timothy Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20036 Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org 202-463-2588 (phone) 202-463-2423 (fax) www.afandpa.org

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED
*******************

This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program
could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introducedinto the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program
attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate,

you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file

name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment.
After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment,

you can rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED
***********************
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-50918

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pl aint iff- Appellee,
versus ISAAC POWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas
Before JONES, Chief Judge, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Because this court lacks jurisdiction in this case, we dismiss peti tioner’s claims. We also hold th at court-appoint ed counsel are not required to file A nders briefs in frivo lo us appeals from nonappealable orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Isaac Powell was under supervised release arising out of a previous counterfeit security conviction when th e government requested a blo od sample pursuant to the DNA Act. Powell init ially refused, but aft er discussions wit h th e district court judge who warned Powell th at if he did not submit th e blo od sample he could face revocation of his supervised release, he relented and provided2

th e sample to th e government. Powell challenges the constitutionality of the DNA Act in this appeal. DISCUSSION Pow ell challenges the constitutionality of the DNA Act which, despite Powell’s attempted arguments to th e contrary , is well settled. S ee Groceman v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 354 F.3d 411, 413 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Powell appeals from a non-appealable order, this court lacks jurisdiction. Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over th ree ty pes of appeals: (1) final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) certain specific ty

pes of interlocutory appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (3) an appeal in which the district court has certified th e question as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b ), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc. , 848 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1998). Powell’s attorney has filed an Anders brief. A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), set guidelines fo r when court-appoint ed attorney s can wit hdraw from frivo lo us appeals. Court-appointed attorney s who wish to wit hdraw because they represent indigent client s who want to pursue frivo lo us appeals must undertake a “conscientious” examination of the case, request permission to wit hdraw and, submit a “brief referring to anyt hing in the record th at might arguabl y support the appeal.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. There is no Anders duty in sit uations such as this where defendant seeks an appeal of a nonappealable o rder over which this court has no jurisdiction. Such situations implicate none of the
concerns underlying th e Anders framework as no jurisdiction fo r an appeal even exists. Additionally, th e duty to f

ulfill t he Anders requirements is only recognized in sit uations where defendants have a constitutional right to counsel. S ee Pennsylvania v. Finley , 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Thus, courtappoint ed counsel can wit hdraw in sit uations like these wit hout fulfilling the requirements of Anders
.3 CONCLUSION The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED.
#### § 553.3 Definitions.

*Administrator* means the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or a person to whom he has delegated final authority in the matter concerned.

*Rule* includes any order, regulation, or Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under Title 49.

*Title 49* means 49 U.S.C. 30101, *et seq.*
Exhibit 32.1

                                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                         SECTION 906 OF THTE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of AmBase  Corporation  (the "Issuer")
on Form  10-K  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A. Bianco, Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Issuer.



/s/ Richard A. Bianco
Richard A. Bianco
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
AmBase Corporation
March 30, 2005
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Julio Alvarado v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number s : 01

- 13

- 00894

- CR ; 01

- 13

- 00895

- CR

Trial court case number: 1325689 ; 1325690

Trial court: 232nd District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel has not, however, filed a motion to withdraw from representation.

If appointed counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must request permission

to withdraw. See id. An Anders brief must accompany a motion to withdraw ; neither the brief nor the motion may be filed on i ts own. See id. ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel to file with the Clerk of this Court

within 10 days of the date of this order a motion to withdraw that complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5 and 9. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6.5, 9; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 410, 412.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 10, 2014
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-42543 dated August 30, 1991) pertaining to the Company's 1967
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-42544
dated August 30, 1991, Form S-8 No. 333-05897 dated June 13, 1996, and Form S-8
No. 333-140708 dated February 14, 2007) pertaining to the Company's 1990 Stock
Option Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-05899 dated June 13,
1996, and Form S-8 No. 333-140473 dated February 6, 2007) pertaining to the
Company's Restricted Stock Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
333-118508 dated August 24, 2004, and Form S-8 No. 333-140709 dated February 14,
2007) pertaining to the Directors' Stock Option Plan and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-140710 dated February 14, 2007) pertaining to
Employment Inducement Options, of our reports dated March 19, 2008, with respect
to the financial statements of ThinkEngine Networks, Inc. and schedule hereto
included in this Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.


                          /S/ CARLIN, CHARRON & ROSEN, LLP
                          GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT
                          MARCH 19, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 21 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 20, 2001.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Sununu to rank after Mr. Nussle.
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Ney, Chairman.
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Mr. Hefley, Chairman.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

               SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH DIRECTORS

Directors of Nashua Corporation who are also company employees receive no
additional or special compensation for serving as directors.

Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for Nashua
Corporation's non-employee directors:

      Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $60,000, payable
      in quarterly installments. Nashua also pays non-employee directors $1,000
      in cash plus expenses for each Board meeting or Board committee meeting
      they attend. Nashua's Lead Director receives an additional $7,500 in cash,
      the Chairman of the Audit/ Finance and Investment Committee receives an
      additional $2,500 in cash and the Chairman of the Leadership and
      Compensation Committee receives an additional $1,500 in cash.

      Each non-employee director is also entitled to receive an annual stock
      option award to purchase 5,000 shares of Nashua's common stock with an
      exercise price equal to the fair market value of such shares on the date
      of award under the provisions of Nashua's stock plans. However, due to the
      limited number of shares available under Nashua's stock plans,
      non-employee directors may receive a cash payment in lieu of such stock
      options, at the discretion of the Board of Directors.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 334 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 24, 2002.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 1762) to amend the Higher Education Act of 
1965 to establish fixed interest rates for student and parent borrowers, to 
extend current law with respect to special allowances for lenders, and for other 
purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to commit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 20, 2010 

p1213 

Order 

 

December 20, 2010 

141650 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141650 

 COA: 298077 

Macomb CC: 08-003323-FH 

BOBBY RAY HOWARD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4470]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENDA

TIME AND DATE  9:30 am, Tuesday, September 18, 2007.

PLACE:  NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 
20594.

STATUS:  The one item is open to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:  5299Y: Most Wanted Transportation Safety 
Improvements--2007 Progress Report and Update on State Issues.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris 
Bisett at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, September 14, 2007.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
http://www.ntsb.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: September 7, 2007.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-4470 Filed 9-7-07; 1:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 148

Electing Members to serve on the Joint Committee on Printing and the

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 2001

Mr. NEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Electing Members to serve on the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE

3 ON PRINTING AND JOINT COMMITTEE OF

4 CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY.

5 (a) JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.—The following

6 Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee on

7 Printing, to serve with the chair of the Committee on

8 House Administration:

9 (1) Mr. Doolittle.

10 (2) Mr. Linder.
2

•HRES 148 IH

1 (3) Mr. Hoyer.

2 (4) Mr. Fattah.

3 (b) JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LI4 BRARY.—The following Members are hereby elected to the

5 Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, to serve with

6 the chair of the Committee on House Administration:

7 (1) Mr. Ehlers.

8 (2) Mr. Hoyer.

9 (3) Mr. Davis of Florida.

Æ